> On May 15, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:42:01AM -0700, Steven Schear wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:32 AM, John Newman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
> On May 13, 2017, at 7:12 PM, Zenaan Harkness
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:42:01AM -0700, Steven Schear wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:32 AM, John Newman wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > On May 13, 2017, at 7:12 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 01:59:32PM -0400, John Newman wrote:
On 05/15/2017 10:42 AM, Steven Schear wrote:
>
> The fact that science advances is not a legitimate attack on any
> particular piece of current science. If that's all you got... you got
> nothing.
"Trump's pick for USDA Chief Scientist is missing a key requirement for
the job: being a
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:32 AM, John Newman wrote:
>
>
> > On May 13, 2017, at 7:12 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 01:59:32PM -0400, John Newman wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On May 13, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Steven Schear
> On May 13, 2017, at 7:12 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 01:59:32PM -0400, John Newman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On May 13, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Steven Schear wrote:
>>>
>>> Michael Crichton's famous lecture drops the mike on
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 01:59:32PM -0400, John Newman wrote:
>
>
> > On May 13, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Steven Schear wrote:
> >
> > Michael Crichton's famous lecture drops the mike on consensus vs. science
> > and should be required reading for anyone with an open mind on
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:20:11AM -0700, Steven Schear wrote:
> As I mentioned, cosmology is another field whose theories also can never be
> conclusively proven and despite massive consensus will remain just that:
> only opinion.
Well I for one am very s[ck]eptical about this particular
On Sat, 13 May 2017 13:59:32 -0400
John Newman wrote:
>
> It's funny how the biggest skeptics on climate science tend to either
> be funded by the petroleum (and related) industry
ah, a conspiracy theory? ^-^
>(these are the few
> that publish studies) OR have no
> On May 13, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Steven Schear wrote:
>
> Michael Crichton's famous lecture drops the mike on consensus vs. science and
> should be required reading for anyone with an open mind on this topic.
>
>
>
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 01:16:16AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> imagination. Or something :-Dξꟾ
By the way, this character: ꟾ
should appear as a vertical bar - it does not with X
-misc-fixed-medium-r-normal--10-100-75-75-c-60-iso10646-1
(6x10) font, so perhaps someone will leap in and add this
Perfectly apropos. Really enjoyed this link (or rather, the text
behind the link). Grazios!
(Indeed, it's as apropos as your top posting is uselessly contrary
to the thread as it was and to our general expectations for
this list which are thus heedlessly, needlessly, a rapping and
a tappingly
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 08:27:43PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
> If you have read the climategate files, you will know that the new
> scientific method, the method of official science, is to determine
> the truth by consensus, then look for evidence to support that
> official truth, while
If you have read the climategate files, you will know that the new
scientific method, the method of official science, is to determine the
truth by consensus, then look for evidence to support that official
truth, while ignoring or suppressing any contrary evidence, and if
evidence cannot be
On Thu, 11 May 2017 18:48:02 -0500
"\\0xDynamite" wrote:
> >> > Those pushing the anthropomorphic climate change agenda never,
> >> > AFAIK, ever admit that this view is ONLY consensus (based on data
> >> > and models) but not independently verifiable via the
>> > Those pushing the anthropomorphic climate change agenda never,
>> > AFAIK, ever admit that this view is ONLY consensus (based on data
>> > and models) but not independently verifiable via the Scientific
>> > Method, the gold standard for science.
>>
>> You're talking in circles. What do you
On Thu, 11 May 2017 18:10:51 -0500
"\\0xDynamite" wrote:
> > Those pushing the anthropomorphic climate change agenda never,
> > AFAIK, ever admit that this view is ONLY consensus (based on data
> > and models) but not independently verifiable via the Scientific
> >
The Scientific Method requires that experiments with controlled initial
conditions be conducted. If a field of science is such , as in cosmology or
climatology, that such experiments cannot be conducted then this is a
"soft" science whose "truth" can never exceed opinion, which is politics.
On 5/9/17, James A. Donald wrote:
> On 2017-05-08 22:39, \0xDynamite wrote:
>> Given the website you cited, I think YOU are cherry picking your
>> methodology.
>
> I link to a cite
The word is "site" and it's a bullshit, non-scientific site.
> that shows scientists forging
> Those pushing the anthropomorphic climate change agenda never, AFAIK, ever
> admit that this view is ONLY consensus (based on data and models) but not
> independently verifiable via the Scientific Method, the gold standard for
> science.
You're talking in circles. What do you suppose the
On Mon, 8 May 2017 16:15:58 -0700
Steven Schear wrote:
> From that reply I will assume you have nit read the book.
whether I read the book or not doesn't change the fact that the
assholes behind mises.org are a bunch of conservative fascists
Those pushing the anthropomorphic climate change agenda never, AFAIK, ever
admit that this view is ONLY consensus (based on data and models) but not
independently verifiable via the Scientific Method, the gold standard for
science.
Warrant Canary creator
On May 8, 2017 5:22 PM, "\0xDynamite"
>> except for very token
>> gestures.
>
> I don't think that the tens of billions of dollars that go to
> special interests including of course the 'scientific' mafia
> are a token gesture.
There's aren't "tens of billions" of dollars spent to prove global
warming except to
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 02:51:02PM -0300, Juan wrote:
> On Sat, 6 May 2017 02:32:47 -0400
> John Newman wrote:
> > except for very token
> > gestures.
>
> I don't think that the tens of billions of dollars that go to
> special interests including of course the
>From that reply I will assume you have nit read the book.
Warrant Canary creator
On May 8, 2017 4:12 PM, "juan" wrote:
> On Mon, 8 May 2017 15:59:11 -0700
> Steven Schear wrote:
>
> >> Mises.org
>
> conservative fascists posing as
On Mon, 8 May 2017 15:59:11 -0700
Steven Schear wrote:
>> Mises.org
conservative fascists posing as 'libertarian'
One of the best answers to this oft asked question can be found in Frank
Chudorov's, The Rise and Fall of Society. Free .pdf and .epub unavailable
at Mises.org
https://mises.org/files/rise-and-fall-society
Steve
Warrant Canary creator
On May 2, 2017 5:40 PM, "jim bell"
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 02:51:02PM -0300, juan wrote:
> On Sat, 6 May 2017 02:32:47 -0400
> John Newman wrote:
>
>
> >
> > What's your evidence that anthropogenic climate change is a massive
> > hoax? I know we've been through this before and I don't want another
> > flame
On Sat, 6 May 2017 02:32:47 -0400
John Newman wrote:
>
> What's your evidence that anthropogenic climate change is a massive
> hoax? I know we've been through this before and I don't want another
> flame fest I'm genuinely curious.
Just to be clear, since juan and other get their panties in a wad if
even the possibility of God is mentioned, I AM claiming that
Christians are BIASed about the issue of god -- they think it's Jesus.
Talk about an opportunity that was missed by the intelligensia.
\0x
On 5/8/17, \0xDynamite
>>>I think I know more about physics and its manipulation by state
>>>mafias than you do.i ii
>>
>> What's your evidence that anthropogenic climate change is a massive hoax?
>> I know we've been through this before and I don't want another flame
>> fest I'm genuinely curious.
>
> It is
On 2017-05-06 16:32, John Newman wrote:
On May 6, 2017, at 12:08 AM, juan wrote:
On Fri, 5 May 2017 18:34:58 -0400
Steve Kinney wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/05/2017 03:24 PM, juan wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2017
> On May 6, 2017, at 12:08 AM, juan wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 May 2017 18:34:58 -0400
> Steve Kinney wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 05/05/2017 03:24 PM, juan wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 May 2017 20:33:56 -0400
On Fri, 5 May 2017 18:34:58 -0400
Steve Kinney wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On 05/05/2017 03:24 PM, juan wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 May 2017 20:33:56 -0400 Steve Kinney
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The State fully
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/05/2017 03:24 PM, juan wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2017 20:33:56 -0400 Steve Kinney
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The State fully endorses the Scientician approach, as the State's
>> sole function is to transfer money and power from
On Thu, 4 May 2017 20:33:56 -0400
Steve Kinney wrote:
>
> The State fully endorses the Scientician approach, as the State's sole
> function is to transfer money and power from the poor to the rich at
> the fastest practicable rate. As always, symbolic "initiatives" and
>
Steven and Zenaan,
Very good material. Nice analysis of the scientism. You'd like the
study of the Nacirema people in anthropology.
Finally people are starting to see that the worship of science was no
superior than the worship of Jesus. Both have delayed real social
progress by almost a
[OT]
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
> PS for Georgi, who likes to celebrate special dates!
>
> May the 4th be with you, yayyy!!! :D
---
And today, Happy Cinco de Mayo, yayyy!!! :D
* Trump Before (2016):
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 01:49:03PM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On 05/03/2017 03:27 PM, juan wrote:
>
> > what's actually going on is that people with the same twisted
> > desire for 'order' like you are embarked in the destruction or
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/04/2017 06:11 PM, juan wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2017 13:49:03 -0400 Steve Kinney
> wrote:
>> The Scientician faith and its Corporate Capitalist patrons tell
>> us that technological "quick fix" solutions will be created
PS for Georgi, who likes to celebrate special dates!
May the 4th be with you, yayyy!!! :D
On Thu, 4 May 2017 13:49:03 -0400
Steve Kinney wrote:
>
> The global Superstate scenario is "real" in the sense that many people
> actually seem to believe in it, approve of it and want to make it
> happen. Such is the power of propaganda in the age of ubiquitous
>
On Thu, May 4, 2017, at 4:29 PM, John Newman wrote:
>
> Are you a lawyer, or a "jailhouse lawyer"? ;) The ridiculously
> over-zealous punitive nature of the legal system, at least in America,
> always has a massive bias against the individual. Essentially, you don't
> have any
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 01:29:35PM +, \0xDynamite wrote:
> >> Yet, they haven't "self-organized" to come together and FIX the
> >> problem in their own self-interest, have they? So there either is an
> >> error in the analysis or there is some EXISTENTIALLY OTHER force that
> >> prevents it
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 01:49:03PM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:
>
>
> On 05/03/2017 03:27 PM, juan wrote:
>
> > what's actually going on is that people with the same twisted
> > desire for 'order' like you are embarked in the destruction or
> > 'assimilation' of human invidivuals into some sort
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/03/2017 03:27 PM, juan wrote:
> what's actually going on is that people with the same twisted
> desire for 'order' like you are embarked in the destruction or
> 'assimilation' of human invidivuals into some sort of 'meta
> organism'. Or
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 03:18:03AM +, \0xDynamite wrote:
> You know, you guys have given some decent responses.
Hey, let's call it "us guys", as in all of us - we're in this
world together of course ..
> The truth of the matter is that I love the anarchists. I am equally
> happy with an
You know, you guys have given some decent responses.
The truth of the matter is that I love the anarchists. I am equally
happy with an Enlightened State (if such could be made) as anarchy,
but I can't get settled with either because there's no love from
either.
So, I cannot allow myself to
> gcc (without modules) ->
gcc (without plug ins) -> LLVM -> gcc (with plug ins)
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 03:11:32PM +, \0xDynamite wrote:
> >> The solution, then, is a META-state. A system of order bigger and
> >> better than the State.
> >
> > Yes. How could we have missed such an obvious solution.
>
> Easy tiger. Hopefully, the other posts clarify. Obviously the
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 01:27:05PM +, \0xDynamite wrote:
> >>That's some good bit o' history.
> > It was you who asked the question "Without a State, would we have
> > electronics? Radio?"
>
> Yes and I was being serious. I hadn't encounted that history before.
>
> >> I was really
From: \0xDynamite
>>That's some good bit o' history.
> It was you who asked the question "Without a State, would we have
> electronics? Radio?"
>Yes and I was being serious. I hadn't encounted that history
And you probably haven't encountered the history of most
On Wed, 3 May 2017 13:27:05 +
"\\0xDynamite" wrote:
> Just as single-cellular life gave rise
> to multi-cellular life,
so now you believe in evolution?
> a new LEVEL of order was made beyond the cell.
> In this sense, you could say all the
>> The solution, then, is a META-state. A system of order bigger and
>> better than the State.
>
> Yes. How could we have missed such an obvious solution.
Easy tiger. Hopefully, the other posts clarify. Obviously the State
sucks, but it sucks because of THE PEOPLE, don't forget that.
>> Yet, they haven't "self-organized" to come together and FIX the
>> problem in their own self-interest, have they? So there either is an
>> error in the analysis or there is some EXISTENTIALLY OTHER force that
>> prevents it that is not of this world --otherwise they would come
>> together and
>>That's some good bit o' history.
> It was you who asked the question "Without a State, would we have
> electronics? Radio?"
Yes and I was being serious. I hadn't encounted that history before.
>> I was really referring to the level
> of existing order needed to create *more* levels of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/02/2017 05:39 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
>>> But I like the sentiment. I think the problem is more than
>>> the State. It's the pathetic infrastructure that would be an
>>> eyesore for centuries.
>>
>> Bear in mind that the "State" is a model of
On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 01:41:16PM +, \0xDynamite wrote:
> >> How does anarchy provide the high-level of organization needed to
> >> produce a car?
> >
> > Humans have this funny habit of organising themselves, through
> > conversation into action, to meet actual needs or desires. "Social
> >
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 03:50:51PM -0500, \0xDynamite wrote:
> That's some good bit o' history. I was really referring to the level
> of existing order needed to create *more* levels of order.
E.g "create tech to fly to Mars" and stuff?
> I don't
> think it's possible to argue with that.
On Tue, 2 May 2017 16:39:09 -0500
"\\0xDynamite" wrote:
> The solution, then, is a META-state. A system of order bigger and
> better than the State.
Yes. How could we have missed such an obvious solution.
What's needed is a META-STATE. with JESUS
From: \0xDynamite
>That's some good bit o' history.
It was you who asked the question "Without a State, would we have electronics?
Radio?"
I proceeded to answer that question, and others. You asked the history
question, I thought the answer was obviousl.
>
On 05/02/2017 02:31 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
> walking it back to conditions comparable to the 1950s is humanity's
> Great Mission Objective.
Dog forbid!
Rr
Even better, just listen to this:
Cyberpunkers, illegal mix, vol 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoR-3xuZNw8
There's, like, 6 more volumes.
\x
>> But I like the sentiment. I think the problem is more than the
>> State. It's the pathetic infrastructure that would be an eyesore
>> for centuries.
>
> Bear in mind that the "State" is a model of governance, not a synonym
> for governance. It is a failed model, as witness the Anthropocene
>
That's some good bit o' history. I was really referring to the level
of existing order needed to create *more* levels of order. I don't
think it's possible to argue with that. It's like arguing what's the
use of the Self? BECAUSE without it you'd turn into little slime
molds looking for food.
From: \0xDynamite
>Without a State, would we have electronics? Radio?
That's a question which displays a lack of knowledge of technical history.
Radio transmission was known as a consequence of Maxwell's equations, Maxwell's
equations . Heinrich Hertz
>> How does anarchy provide the high-level of organization needed to
>> produce a car?
>
> Humans have this funny habit of organising themselves, through
> conversation into action, to meet actual needs or desires. "Social
> animals" and all..
>
> Seriously, the problem is not, has never been and
On 2017-05-01 10:58, \0xDynamite wrote:
How does anarchy provide the high-level of organization needed to
produce a car? From ore, to smelting steel, to engineering, to
molding, to paints, batteries, upholstery and textiles, etc?
Anarcho socialists and anarcho communists have provided vague
On Mon, 1 May 2017 12:20:19 +1000
Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>
> Humans have this funny habit of organising themselves, through
> conversation into action, to meet actual needs or desires. "Social
> animals" and all..
>
> Seriously, the problem is not, has never been and never
On Apr 30, 2017, at 8:58 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
>>> This seems like a lame question, but What is the value of the State?
>>
>> Centralisation of power.
>
> You can have a socialist state without centralization.
>
>> A sense of safety/security for sheeple.
>
> But
On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 12:58:31AM +, \0xDynamite wrote:
> >> This seems like a lame question, but What is the value of the State?
> >
> > Centralisation of power.
>
> You can have a socialist state without centralization.
You're presuming value in "socialist state".
When I said "one of the
On Mon, 1 May 2017 01:08:34 +
"\\0xDynamite" wrote:
> >> How does anarchy provide the high-level of organization needed to
> >> produce a car? From ore, to smelting steel, to engineering, to
> >> molding, to paints, batteries, upholstery and textiles, etc?
> >
> >
>> How does anarchy provide the high-level of organization needed to
>> produce a car? From ore, to smelting steel, to engineering, to
>> molding, to paints, batteries, upholstery and textiles, etc?
>
> are you trolling or what? Are you as ignorant as your question
> suggests you are,
On Mon, 1 May 2017 00:58:31 +
"\\0xDynamite" wrote:
>
> How does anarchy provide the high-level of organization needed to
> produce a car? From ore, to smelting steel, to engineering, to
> molding, to paints, batteries, upholstery and textiles, etc?
are
On 5/1/17, \0xDynamite wrote:
>>> This seems like a lame question, but What is the value of the State?
>>
>> Centralisation of power.
>
> You can have a socialist state without centralization.
>
>> A sense of safety/security for sheeple.
>
> But the state also makes
>> This seems like a lame question, but What is the value of the State?
>
> Centralisation of power.
You can have a socialist state without centralization.
> A sense of safety/security for sheeple.
But the state also makes insecurity: bigger wars, for example.
>> Without a State, would we
On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 11:37:06PM +, \0xDynamite wrote:
> This seems like a lame question, but What is the value of the State?
Centralisation of power.
A sense of safety/security for sheeple.
Touted ideals by the state which are difficult to claim/exercise
because of the state, i.e. self
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 23:37:06 +
"\\0xDynamite" wrote:
> This seems like a lame question, but What is the value of the State?
pretty valuable, for statists.
> Do activists require a State (defined as a codifed system of
> governance)?
This seems like a lame question, but What is the value of the State?
Do activists require a State (defined as a codifed system of
governance)?
Without a State, would we have electronics? Radio? Computers? Mass
Transit? Bikes?
And if we need a State, what form should it take?
Marxos
78 matches
Mail list logo